Return to Transcripts main page
Connect the World
Todd Blanche Faces Confirmation Hearing. Aired 10-11a ET
Aired July 15, 2026 - 10:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[10:00:00]
(MUSIC PLAYING)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): Live from CNN Abu Dhabi, this is CONNECT THE WORLD with Becky Anderson.
BECKY ANDERSON, CNN HOST (voice-over): Welcome to the second hour of the show from our Middle East programming headquarters. I'm Becky Anderson in
Abu Dhabi, where the time is just after 6:00 in the evening.
It is just after 10 in Washington and the confirmation hearing of acting U.S. attorney general Todd Blanche underway. Senators grilling him on his
time at the U.S. Justice Department so far, which has included targeting president Trump's enemies and trying to reward Trump's allies in a now
scrapped $1.8 billion fund.
He's currently talking about the Epstein files. Let's listen in.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
TODD BLANCHE, ACTING U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: -- being here today. I also have somebody from my office who's spent her entire career working on cases
like Mr. Epstein's. She's in charge of our task force investigating human trafficking.
She's available to talk to them since today.
SEN. RICHARD DURBIN (D-IL), CHAIR, SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: She can sit right next to you -- she can sit right next to you when you meet with these
survivors.
BLANCHE: I am -- I have never said I will not meet with survivors. I am -- so --
DURBIN: Will you meet with these 10 survivors?
I'm asking you on the record.
BLANCHE: If they have lawyers, as you know, I'm prohibited from meeting directly with them. I have met with counsel for survivors, as has many
people in the Department of Justice --
DURBIN: So you --
(CROSSTALK)
BLANCHE: -- over 30. But if they are represented by counsel, we will work with their counsel. If they don't have a lawyer, I will certainly make
arrangements to make sure the right people at the Department of Justice meet with them.
DURBIN: Will you get it done --
BLANCHE: Absolutely.
DURBIN: Will you get it done within the next 30 days that each of these survivors --
BLANCHE: I will get it done today, if that's necessary.
My point is there's somebody here who can meet with them today, get their information, arranged to meet with them. Absolutely.
DURBIN: I think you ought to be in the room.
BLANCHE: Pardon me?
DURBIN: I think you ought to be in the room because you ought to hear this. You've had singular responsibility for these files. There is a delay
in meeting the statutory requirement of disclosure. You were involved in that. I think you ought to be part of this and --
(CROSSTALK)
BLANCHE: I am definitely part of it and I have been from day one.
DURBIN: And it will be done within the next 30 days?
BLANCHE: I have -- I can keep on repeating myself but I said it could get done as soon as today. It could have gotten done last week. We remain
available to meet with any victim or their representative at any time.
DURBIN: Will you notify the committee when you've done this?
BLANCHE: That would be prohibited by law if they're talking about an ongoing investigation.
DURBIN: I'm asking you if you'll notify the committee that you met with the survivors --
BLANCHE: It depends on what they said. I'm not sure I'm allowed to notify you if there's an ongoing investigation.
DURBIN: Well, you're dancing on the head of a pin here.
(CROSSTALK)
BLANCHE: I'm not dancing on any pin at all.
DURBIN: You have these survivors who have the courage to come before this committee. They have the courage to tell their terrible stories how they
were exploited. don't you think it's important that we have a prompt response by our government to these survivors?
BLANCHE: Absolutely. And there will be a prompt response. I --
(CROSSTALK)
BLANCHE: My heartbreaks for every survivor --
DURBIN: Well --
BLANCHE: -- every victim of Mr. Epstein. Absolutely. And I would love to prosecute anybody that did any harm to these victims. So absolutely.
DURBIN: Will you meet with them within the next 30 days?
It's the last time I asked a question. You can say yes or no.
BLANCHE: I can keep on answering it the same way. I can meet with them. My staff will meet with them. We have a staff member here today who
specializes --
DURBIN: If you can meet with them, will you meet with them?
BLANCHE: I'm not sure what you're looking for me to say. As I said --
DURBIN: Yes --
(CROSSTALK)
BLANCHE: -- there are -- there are -- there are -- if they're represented by counsel, I'm not allowed to meet with them directly. As you know -- I
assure you, the FBI, who are experts in this space, prosecutors who are experts in this space and me, if necessary, will absolutely meet with them.
I promise you this.
DURBIN: I think it's necessary.
BLANCHE: I will say updated and know everything that's happening with any victim that has information about any of -- any other people that work with
Epstein that committed any crimes with Epstein. Absolutely.
DURBIN: Well, if you're truly committed to extraordinary transparency and you're willing to meet with these victims, I hope you will do it
immediately or we're going to hold you to it.
I want to ask you about the immunity provisions that you signed relative to the responsibility and liability of the president and his family and their
businesses when it comes to tax audits.
Would you like to explain how we can give to the president and his family and businesses exemptions from complying with the tax laws of the United
States?
[10:05:03]
BLANCHE: It's not an exemption to comply with the tax laws of the United States. As part of the settlement, it was an agreement that any past audits
would be -- would end.
DURBIN: The United States -- your signature. The United States releases, waves, acquits and forever discharges each of the plaintiffs when it comes
to tax liability. That's how it reads. It's pretty sweeping. You don't believe that is a discharge forever from liability?
BLANCHE: Of past -- of any past filings. Yes.
DURBIN: All right. It is. How do you explain that to -- the American people, everyone in this room, all of us on this side, we have to follow
the tax laws of the United States and if we don't, we can held -- be held responsible for it to the point of even criminal prosecution.
Why did you decide that President Trump and his family and their businesses should be exempt from that same responsibility?
BLANCHE: As part of the settlement between the IRS and President Trump and some of his family, two of his sons and his organization, as is typical
when there's a settlement between plaintiffs and the IRS, part of the settlement included release of any past audits.
It does not give any protection to the president, his family or his organizations for any taxes they file, if they filed it the day after I --
the day of that I signed that agreement or the day after, they have no protection.
DURBIN: No matter what their liability, no matter what their violation of tax law, you signed a document that forever discharged them from any legal
responsibility.
BLANCHE: As part of the settlement that we entered into, any past audits were --
(CROSSTALK)
DURBIN: How often -- how often do you think that's been done in the history of the United States?
BLANCHE: Involving the president of the United States?
I'm not sure it's ever been done. But this type of settlement is done regularly.
DURBIN: So you're saying that, when it comes to the president of the United States, his family and businesses have no responsibility under the
tax laws for any wrongdoing prior to the signing of this document?
BLANCHE: No, I mean, I didn't say that at all. What I'm saying is that I think President Trump and his family are the first president that had their
tax returns illegally taken -- illegally made available to the public. So that is unique to President Trump. Yes. But this type of settlement is not
unique to the Department of Justice or the IRS.
DURBIN: It's hard to explain to the American people that no one is above the law when that type of document was signed by you, forever discharging
that family and that President from any liability for violating the tax laws.
BLANCHE: Nobody is above the law. And when we enter into settlements like that, we do it with all kinds of people. It's not just President Trump. It
doesn't make any of those individuals above the law.
DURBIN: So let me ask you, since you don't believe anyone should be above the law, about the January 6th rioters pardoned. We've taken a look at some
of the people that the president pardoned on his first day in office, the ones who attacked this Capitol.
And I'll use the word attack because I was here and I saw what happened. Anyone looking at the videos knows what happened on that day.
Among those who were pardoned by the president are individuals who have gone on to commit serious crimes against innocent victims across the United
States. Do you think that blanket pardoned by the president of January 6th rioters was the right thing to do?
BLANCHE: I think that this -- the Constitution gives the president the full power to pardon anybody for any reason he wants. And so, I don't
question President Trump's authority or his decision to do so on --
DURBIN: You don't --
BLANCHE: -- January 20th.
DURBIN: You don't question his decision?
BLANCHE: As I said, President Trump, under our Constitution, just like President Biden, has the authority to pardon anybody for any federal crime.
And that's something that every president -- that's a privilege every president's afforded and -- including President Biden and President Trump.
DURBIN: Well, I can tell you, he may have had the authority to do it but I think someone should have grabbed him by the arm and said stop. You can't
release all of those rioters.
Some of them actually physically assaulted policemen in the Capitol. Some of them were guilty of crimes -- serious crimes before that day.
And for the president to give a blanket pardon to these individuals is something that I don't think you can explain to the American people. You
certainly can't explain it to the policemen who almost lost their lives because of these attackers.
I yield, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA): Before I go to Senator Cornyn, I'd like to enter in the record for supporting Mr. Blanche's nomination from former
Attorney General John Ashcroft and this is the quote from the letter.
"This rule of law is the best friend of liberty to safeguard this core value. America needs an attorney general exclusively devoted to the rule of
law and will honor his oath to the Constitution.
[10:10:03]
"Todd Blanche is the right person for that responsibility. His record and credentials undergird my wholehearted support for his nomination."
Without objection, that'll be entered into the record. Senator Cornyn.
SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): Good morning, Mr. Blanche. Congratulations on your nomination.
There's a lot to admire about your record or service to our country and I respect the fact that you want to continue that service as the attorney
general.
As I told you in my office, I think the attorney general has the hardest job in Washington, D.C., because you are, at the same time, a member of the
president's cabinet subject to dismissal of whatever the president wants for any reason or no reason at all.
But then, you will also have a duty as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. And I think it's a very, very difficult balance.
And I want to ask you a little bit about that, particularly in connection with the settlement of the tax case.
There's so much that's unusual about this. First of all, the fact that the tax returns were leaked by a IRS contractor, Charles Littlejohn, who was
appropriately convicted of a crime for doing that. President Trump and his family were definitely victims of a crime there.
But it happened back in 2020 and the lawsuit wasn't brought until 2026. So with the two-year statute of limitations, it seems to me that that was
something I know that was the subject of pleading in the -- in the complaint and attempt to avoid the two-year statute of limitations but that
struck me as unusual.
But let's talk a little bit about the -- about the settlement agreement and the release.
First of all, I believe you have said that the weaponization fund is a moot issue. Is that your position?
BLANCHE: Yes, it is a moot issue, meaning there is no weaponization fund. The weaponization fund is dead. It's not moving forward.
CORNYN: Well, I would refer you to the settlement agreement. Do you happen to have a copy of that in front of you?
BLANCHE: I do not, Senator.
CORNYN: OK. Well, you probably know what's in it.
BLANCHE: I'm familiar with it. Yes.
CORNYN: I'm sure you are.
On page 4, this settlement agreement can be -- may be modified only upon the written agreement of the parties. Has there been a written agreement of
the parties to modify the settlement fund?
BLANCHE: No. The settlement fund is just not moving forward. There's no modification. It's just -- it never started. No money went from the
Treasury to any other account. There's no commissioners. It's not moving forward.
CORNYN: Well, so the settlement agreement remains as it was originally but I hear what you're saying. Is it -- is the settlement agreement enforceable
as a contract by the parties?
BLANCHE: Well, yes, it's an enforceable document. So I suppose if President Trump's counsel sought to enforce it, that they potentially
could. But --
CORNYN: Including the weaponization fund?
BLANCHE: Well, they could try to enforce the contract. They can't force the Department of Justice to move forward with the weaponization fund. They
could potentially say that -- I suppose, that we breached by not moving forward. They haven't done that and I'm not aware that they're planning on
doing that.
Like I -- Senator, what -- and Senator Durbin talked about this but I have talked extensively with you and other colleagues about potentially
codifying, so there's no weaponization fund, which is certainly something that could be done. And I wasn't meaning to insult this body.
But just in response to questions from Senators about whether that could be done, we very much are OK with that.
CORNYN: But just to be clear, the president of the United States, who was a plaintiff in this lawsuit, has not agreed in writing to delete the
weaponization fund. And there's no guarantee that he or one of the other plaintiffs might raise that issue by way of a lawsuit and -- a breach of
contract lawsuit in the future.
BLANCHE: Well, Senator, the plaintiffs have no power over the fund. The fund was administered solely by the -- by the five commissioners and
through the Department of Justice. So no, they don't have any power with respect to the fund at all.
I suppose they could bring a lawsuit and then we would litigate it. But even if we were litigating it, there's no fund. So the results of such
litigation, whatever it would be, wouldn't be a revival of the fund.
CORNYN: I want to ask you about the release and I know I'm guilty of what a lot of lawyers are guilty of and having a chart you can't read. But I
know you're familiar with this document, which is the release that you signed on May the 19th, 2026.
[10:15:05]
First of all, does this purport to release parties or people who were not parties to the lawsuit?
BLANCHE: No, Senator.
CORNYN: Well, it says here that claims asserted by defendants or any of the plaintiffs or related or affiliated individuals, including without
limitation, family or others filing jointly or parties, including trust, parent, sister or related companies, affiliates or subsidiaries. They
weren't a party to the lawsuit, were they?
BLANCHE: I didn't hear everything you just said, Senator but the only parties that were -- that had any release as respect to any potential
audits, even if they existed, were the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
CORNYN: Did you -- did you talk to the president about the settlement?
He originally sued for $10 billion and settled for an apology and this weaponization fund and then the release of future liability for tax audits.
Did you discuss it with him?
BLANCHE: No, I did not. He had outside counsel. I did not discuss it with his outside counsel, either. It was done by other people in the office.
CORNYN: And this lawsuit, this was a lawsuit brought --
BLANCHE: Can I qualify that?
CORNYN: Sure.
BLANCHE: After when we determined not to move forward, as the president has said, that's the only time that he and I had any conversations about
this at all was after when it was dead, when we said we're not moving forward.
CORNYN: And this lawsuit was brought against the IRS and Treasury, yet this release purports to apply to defendants or other agencies or
departments. So does this release apply to, let's say, an investigation by the Security and Exchange Commission or some other federal agency?
BLANCHE: No, that's the standard language that we use when we enter into settlements between plaintiffs and the IRS. But no, it doesn't bind. It's
issued by me because statutes require and authorize me to do that, as opposed to other cabinet members. And in this case, it binds only the IRS
and, by extension, the Treasury.
CORNYN: Well, I hear what you're saying but I certainly don't read that in the -- in the agreement. But let me turn, since I only have a few minutes
left.
Senator Grassley raised the issue of the mifepristone lawsuit. And just to be clear, you understand the difference between the morning- after pill and
mifepristone, don't you?
BLANCHE: Yes.
CORNYN: And so, mifepristone is a chemical abortion that can be administered up to 10 weeks of gestation. The length of gestation should
be, according to the medical literature, confirmed by ultrasound or clinical assessment by a health care provider.
And it's generally safe and effective, according to the literature, when used under medical guidance.
But the problem is that President Biden's administration changed the Trump policy and allowed the administration of this abortion, chemical abortion
drug, without any medical guidance whatsoever.
And as you know, I've written a letter, Senator Tillis and I sent a letter yesterday. And what I would appreciate, I understand you can't necessarily
talk too much about your litigation strategy in the case of Louisiana against FDA but I would appreciate it if you would respond to this letter
for the record about the intentions of the administration.
If President Trump is the most pro-life president, this ought to be a pretty easy call because women are hurt as a result of side effects, heavy
bleeding, prolonged potentially infection or sepsis, incomplete abortion, other complications when this is being sold through the mail or through
online prescription. Will you do that for me?
BLANCHE: Yes, Senator, I will.
CORNYN: Finally, let me just go back to the, in the 50 seconds I have, go back to this release. This purports to release lawfare or weaponization --
and-or weaponization. Those aren't legal terms of art, are they?
BLANCHE: I think they are just legal terms of art. They're not -- there's not --
CORNYN: Have they been defined in any case or any statute?
BLANCHE: Not that I'm aware of, no.
CORNYN: So they're not a legal term of art?
[10:20:02]
BLANCHE: Well, I think that they -- the terms have been used by the legal community and by people within government. But no, I don't. I'm not sure
that they're in Black's Law Dictionary.
CORNYN: So we don't know what that covers?
BLANCHE: Well, I think it depends on the circumstances of the facts presented as to whether it covers. As to what it covers, sorry.
CORNYN: Thank you. My time is up.
GRASSLEY: Senator Klobuchar?
SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Blanche, after both the assassination of Melissa Hortman, our former Speaker of the House and after the Annunciation school shooting in which 20
people were gunned down through stained glass windows, federal law enforcement, as you and I discussed in my office a few weeks ago, worked
cooperatively with state and local.
And we also know that they've worked together on the important work going on in the U.S. attorney's Office in Minnesota with regard to fraud and the
ongoing fraud investigation. And I know we have your commitment to continue giving resources for that investigation. Is that correct?
BLANCHE: Yes, absolutely. Yes.
KLOBUCHAR: Thank you. So we also discussed my concern about the lack of cooperation we saw after the horrific killings of Renee Good and Alex
Pretti.
With the federal government refusing to cooperate with state law enforcement for months, blocking Minnesota investigators from accessing the
scene of Alex's death, even though they had a judicial warrant.
They also failed to secure, according to news reports, failed to secure and process the scene, failed to process Renee Good's car for evidence.
When we met a few weeks ago at length, I asked you to ensure full cooperation. And I appreciated that the department shared evidence with
state investigators early this week.
Will you commit to continued information sharing between federal and state investigators in these cases, as well as with regard to the recent
shootings in Texas and Maine?
BLANCHE: I expect that these investigations should be run as every investigation of similar kinds. And so that necessarily includes working
with state and locals in the appropriate way.
I think that the definition of full cooperation can be disputed but I very much expect that whether it's the inspector general or the U.S. attorney's
Office or the FBI or whosoever on the federal side of the investigation, where appropriate to work with state and locals.
I think a lot of the news reporting that you referenced is actually not accurate with what has been happening since the unfortunate events some
several months ago.
KLOBUCHAR: OK. But that aside, we've seen these recent shootings in Maine and the reactions of the communities understandably concerned, as well as
Texas.
And I think that this is -- people are going to want accountability in these cases. And one of the things that doesn't get as much attention is
the non-death cases. The Hmong elder pulled out of his house in Minnesota in his underwear and Crocs in 10 below zero weather.
And as the nation's chief law enforcement official, do you agree that it is unacceptable for federal agents to forcibly enter someone's home without a
warrant and drag them onto the street without even checking that they have the right person?
BLANCHE: Well it depends on the circumstances as you just as you know. I mean, yes, obviously, law enforcement agents need a warrant to enter a
house except for limited exceptions to that.
So yes, we very much believe in the constitutional protections afforded American citizens. The same protections are not afforded people who are
here illegally, so it's not a Black-and-white answer where I can say yes or no. But yes, I very much expect the law to be followed by our law
enforcement agents.
KLOBUCHAR: So since the Civil War along those lines, federal law has made it clear that the president does not have the authority to deploy armed
federal officials to election sites. Will you commit to following clear federal law and not deploying federal agents to polling locations?
BLANCHE: I will commit to following the law, Senator., of course, yes.
KLOBUCHAR: Does that include not deploying federal agents to polling places?
BLANCHE: I will absolutely follow the law no matter what it includes, so yes.
KLOBUCHAR: Do you understand why voters, U.S. citizens, are concerned about armed agents at polling places?
BLANCHE: I'm not aware of armed agents being at polling places.
KLOBUCHAR: Thank you.
BLANCHE: So I don't -- I'm not aware of that concern. But I will tell you we will follow the law, Senator.
KLOBUCHAR: All right. The DOJ has carried out a campaign to push states to turn over voters' sensitive and private data to the administration.
[10:25:00]
Thirty states including Republican-led states like Georgia and West Virginia have refused. In doing so, the West Virginian Republican Secretary
of State said, quote, "I will not break the law, give up our state's rights or compromise the privacy of our citizens."
Fifteen federal courts in decisions from Democratic and Republican- appointed judges have all found that these actions to force the states to
turn over this data to -- is unlawful.
Could you discuss how cutting off anti-terrorism funding to states that refuse something that 15 federal courts have found to be illegal enhances
our national security?
BLANCHE: So those cases are still being litigated, so I can't talk specifically about the cases that you mentioned. But overall, what I will
say, Senator, is that election integrity is extraordinarily important to this administration. It's important to this body.
And so to the extent that the work that we're doing is to make sure that we have fair and honest elections. That the only people voting are the people
who are eligible to vote and that they're only voting once. That's important.
KLOBUCHAR: If secure election is important, how does stopping the long- standing practice of critical information sharing and scenario planning between the DOJ, other federal agencies and state and local election
officials promote election security?
Because we have been -- we have heard from our own Secretary of State that Steve Simon, that these standard briefings trainings have not happened.
BLANCHE: We're not doing that. So I'm not sure what you're referring to.
KLOBUCHAR: OK.
BLANCHE: But I'm happy to follow up with your office about that.
KLOBUCHAR: Thank you. I appreciate that. Appreciate that. So you and I talked about some of the antitrust concerns I have, the independence of the
department. I was very concerned by the department's week settlement of the monopolization suit against Live Nation and Ticketmaster.
Do you believe that this settlement was good for consumers?
And if so, then why didn't -- there was another case, of course, that the state attorney general's brought that it's going to result in much better
protections for consumers. Why didn't the DOJ join them, stay in that suit?
BLANCHE: I share your concerns. And, yes, I do believe that settlement was good for consumers. We got a -- the American people got a lot out of that
settlement with Live Nation.
And you talk about another case that's separate. That's ongoing litigation that could potentially take years to resolve. And so, when we make a
decision as a department to settle a case, we are only thinking about the American consumer and making sure that we're complying not only with the
laws but with what's right for Americans.
KLOBUCHAR: Did the White House have any involvement in that decision?
BLANCHE: In the decision regarding which case?
KLOBUCHAR: To settle the Ticketmaster case.
BLANCHE: We work at times closely with the White House Counsel on certain issues. I am sure that I wasn't directly part of discussions, so I can't
speak to that. But I'm mostly not saying that we're not part of it.
KLOBUCHAR: So OK. Are you concerned that former Republican Principal, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Roger Alford, who has appeared before
this committee as a Republican witness in the past, has said that in your department antitrust cases are being resolved based on political
connections, not the legal merits?
BLANCHE: No. His words don't concern me because they're not true.
KLOBUCHAR: Well, a lot of us disagree on that front. So I want to turn to some, sort of, number of issues involving security. So in the wake of the
shooting last year, Annunciation Catholic School was approved to receive funding through the Office for Victims of Crime for mental health and other
support services.
And I appreciate that the department has worked closely with the Annunciation community on this issue. But the delays in the release of
these funds are creating budget concerns. Could you commit to work with me on getting those funds to the school?
BLANCHE: Yes, absolutely.
KLOBUCHAR: Thank you. The president's most recent budget reduces COPS Office funding by nearly $500 million, eliminates the STOP School Violence
Program that I championed with Senator Hatch. He was the lead on it. Are you concerned that cutting this funding will impact school safety?
BLANCHE: No. We have -- we have -- I understand the question. I fully expect that the grants that, ultimately, are included in the budget that's
passed will make sure that we're providing appropriate funds to our communities so that they can continue their good work.
KLOBUCHAR: I have concerns about and I've heard this from several law enforcement and domestic violence groups, about the DOJ plan to consolidate
the COPS program, HIDTA program, Office on Violence Against Women.
[10:30:08]
And why do you think this will be helpful?
Because we believe that they have very different functions.
BLANCHE: I agree with you. That's not what we're doing. There will still be three separate functions.
What we're doing is consolidating above them to one group, so that the application process is smoother and easier for grantees to do their work
and also so that, internally, some of the bureaucracy that was involved in having three separate bureaucratic streams doing the same work.
Even though, you're right; the underlying programs serve different functions, was not efficient. So we're making that efficient.
KLOBUCHAR: And I will follow up with you with some of the domestic violence grants. And I also just want to mention the continued enforcement
under the TAKE IT DOWN Act that Senator Cruz and I passed and how important that is going forward.
BLANCHE: Thank you, Senator, yes.
GRASSLEY: Before I go to Senator Kennedy, I'd like to read a letter supporting the nominee from the National Association of Police
Organizations. More than 1,000 police organizations and 250,000 law enforcement officers nationwide are represented by this letter.
Quote, "Mr. Blanche has proven his commitment to the rule of law and a fair and impartial justice system.
"As deputy attorney general and later acting attorney general, he has built a strong partisanship with law enforcement community, from supporting the
Department of Justice law enforcement assistance grant programs to working to ensure accountability within the public safety officers benefits
program.
He is considered a -- "he has consistently endeavored to meet the needs of state and local law enforcement officers and their families," end of quote.
Without objection, will be entered in.
Senator Kennedy.
SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): General, I assume that you consider yourself to be qualified to be the permanent attorney general.
Is that right?
BLANCHE: Yes, senator.
KENNEDY: I've read your resume. We all have. You don't need to comment on this but it just seems to me that no fair-minded person could conclude that
you're not qualified.
You spent a long time with the department. You spent a long time in private practice. So the opposition of my Democratic friends must be based on
something else.
Are you and president Trump friends?
BLANCHE: I'm his lawyer, was his lawyer and now I'm the deputy attorney general. So I met him as his criminal defense attorney. I'm not sure
there's very many people who have ever had a criminal defense attorney who calls that person their friend. I now have a --
(CROSSTALK)
KENNEDY: Well, let me put it this way.
Are you enemies?
BLANCHE: No, we're not enemies at all. No.
KENNEDY: Have you ever seen a President of the United States appoint an enemy to be attorney general?
BLANCHE: I have not.
KENNEDY: Usually they appoint their qualified friends, don't they?
BLANCHE: Yes.
KENNEDY: I mean, one president appointed his brother, right?
BLANCHE: He did, senator.
KENNEDY: And I can think of another president who appointed his former law partner.
Is that right?
BLANCHE: It is correct.
KENNEDY: OK.
Are you responsible for all the president's decisions?
BLANCHE: No, senator, I'm not.
KENNEDY: I mean, does the president get up in the morning and give you a call first thing and say, Todd, tell me what I ought to do today?
BLANCHE: He does not.
KENNEDY: OK.
Does he ever ask your opinion on actions he should take?
BLANCHE: Yes.
KENNEDY: Do you tell him the truth?
BLANCHE: Every time.
KENNEDY: Have you ever disagreed with him?
BLANCHE: Yes.
KENNEDY: And has-- have you ever disagreed with him and he did it anyway?
BLANCHE: Yes.
KENNEDY: And did you go call a press conference and announce that the president made a bad decision?
BLANCHE: Absolutely not.
KENNEDY: That's not what attorney general -- attorneys general do.
BLANCHE: Correct.
KENNEDY: OK.
[10:35:00]
Has he ever asked you to do anything illegal?
BLANCHE: No.
KENNEDY: Would you do it if he asked you?
BLANCHE: Absolutely not.
KENNEDY: OK.
How many -- how many pages of the so-called Epstein files has the department released?
BLANCHE: Nearly 3 million.
KENNEDY: How many more pages are there?
BLANCHE: That are responsive?
We're not aware of any.
KENNEDY: How about that, in the department's opinion, are not responsive?
BLANCHE: Well, from what we collected, about 3 million that were just nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein or the case at all.
KENNEDY: OK.
Why don't you just release everything?
Just let it rip.
BLANCHE: Well, that would be against the law, because the only reason we could release the 3 million we did is because of the Epstein Transparency
Act.
There are federal laws that prohibit the release of case files. And the Epstein Transparency Act was very explicit and specific about what could be
and should be released.
KENNEDY: Other than to himself -- well, first, we can agree, can we not, that Mr. Epstein was a pig?
BLANCHE: Yes.
KENNEDY: Other than to himself, who, if anyone else, did Mr. Epstein traffic young women to?
BLANCHE: There's -- there's -- from what we learned, from what we know. so when we know, I mean, what's in the FBI files and what's in the DOJ files,
we did not identify evidence.
And by we, I mean career prosecutors, not me, not my leadership but career prosecutors in New York and career prosecutors in Florida who worked this
case hard did identify other participants, some of whom, as has been discussed, were also victims themselves of Mr. Epstein.
But we did not have evidence as of now of other men who were -- that were trafficked -- that Epstein helped traffic. That is -- does not mean it
didn't happen and I want to be clear about that. It just means that we have evidence that the FBI gathered and that the Department of Justice gathered
and that's the body of work that we have to work with.
Which is why I said earlier, if there's anybody out there, a victim or otherwise, that has information, I beg them to come forward.
KENNEDY: OK.
Did Jack Smith read my emails?
BLANCHE: I'm not sure, Senator. I don't know.
KENNEDY: Would you check for me?
BLANCHE: We will check, Senator, yes.
KENNEDY: I think he read Senator Grassley's emails.
How did he -- how can someone at the Department of Justice get Senator Grassley's e-mails without probable cause?
BLANCHE: There are checks in place that should make it extraordinarily difficult for a prosecutor to collect and review a senator's emails or a
congressman's emails or a lawyer's emails or are other folks that have privilege protections associated with their communications and those checks
and balances should always be used.
KENNEDY: But Mr. Smith just ignored them?
BLANCHE: I cannot speak for Mr. Smith, Senator.
KENNEDY: Would you check for me first if he read my emails?
BLANCHE: We will check.
KENNEDY: And, number two, how he got them. And, number three, I don't mean to single out my friend Senator Grassley but what emails did he get of
Senator Grassley?
And, I mean, were they -- what were they limited to, if at all?
Did he get emails from Senator Grassley talking about his corn harvest and all that?
And who did he share them with?
Do you know if Mr. Smith shared my emails with Attorney General Garland?
BLANCHE: I do not know.
KENNEDY: Can you check for me?
BLANCHE: We are investigating that, Senator, yes.
KENNEDY: Yes, I'd kind of like to know all that.
Now Mayor Lori Lightfoot sent us, she sent the world a letter suggesting that we should not confirm you as attorney general. Who is Mayor Lori
Lightfoot, just for the record?
BLANCHE: So she's the former mayor of Chicago.
[10:40:03]
I believe she had a brief stint in the Department of Justice prior to her political life.
KENNEDY: Right.
And you had some conflicts with her.
BLANCHE: I do not believe she supports our administration's efforts making America safe again.
KENNEDY: OK, right. She thinks cops are a bigger problem than criminals. Would that be fair assessment?
BLANCHE: She definitely -- her public rhetoric is not something that either myself or this administration supports, which is to always back our
law enforcement.
KENNEDY: She thinks, if a cop shoots a criminal, it's automatically the cop's fault but if a criminal shoots a cop, it's automatically the gun's
fault. Would that be a fair assessment of the mayor's position?
BLANCHE: Her public statement suggests that.
KENNEDY: OK. Would you put her even in charge of a ham sandwich?
BLANCHE: I don't believe she should be any part of this administration.
KENNEDY: Well, the people in Chicago apparently agreed, I think. She ran for reelection and got 16 percent of the vote. Is that right?
Do you recall?
BLANCHE: I'm not sure what percentage she got, Senator.
KENNEDY: OK.
Tell me a little bit. One of the things that, under your authority, the Department has concentrated on, which I agree with, in addition to
prosecuting crime, is the prosecuting prosecution of white-collar crime, fraud.
Tell me a little bit about that.
BLANCHE: We -- it's incredible since COVID the absolute thievery that's happened from the FISC by people in this country. And so we have focused
tremendous amount of efforts, not only in the new division but at every U.S. attorney's office, with every inspector general and their offices, the
FBI, DHS and HSI, to just root out this fraud.
You have examples of rampant -- of individuals just stealing, so setting up entire centers for autism when there are no patients, when there is no
center and taking millions of dollars of hard-earned taxpayers' money.
And so we are very focused on that. We have already -- like I said earlier, billions and billions, we have already collected in just the past couple of
months. That effort is going to go forward for as long as I am in the position that I am in now, no matter whether I am confirmed or not.
And it's extraordinarily important to every American that this doesn't happen, because we are not talking about whether someone agrees or
disagrees with a policy. It's just outright theft by individuals.
And, unfortunately, many state governments, if they didn't absolutely know what was happening and just encourage it, they certainly stood idly by
while it was happening, which is also a problem.
KENNEDY: OK. don't forget to check on my emails for me.
BLANCHE: Senator, yes.
KENNEDY: Thank you.
GRASSLEY: Senator Whitehouse.
SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE (D-RI): Good morning, Mr. Blanche.
BLANCHE: Good morning.
WHITEHOUSE: Why won't you tell us what became of the $50,000 in confidential money that the FBI reported that it gave to Tom Homan?
BLANCHE: I'm not aware of what you are speaking about. To the extent that there have been public reporting about an investigation, I know nothing
about it.
WHITEHOUSE: Well, the public reporting is that the FBI reported giving $50,000 in the nature of a bribe to Tom Homan and there's been no report of
what became of that $50,000. Will you answer that question?
Not now but will you answer that question?
Because we have been asking it for a long time now.
Your department certainly knows what is happening.
BLANCHE: I'm not aware that that's true.
WHITEHOUSE: Well, take a look at it and it's publicly reported and the FBI reported it and you should answer the question.
That's not the only one. Here is a list of unanswered questions that I have just asked. I don't know how it is that the chairman thinks that you have
cooperated with the committee or that you have been transparent with the committee. That is not my experience.
You said earlier that you welcome our questions. Great. Answer our questions. That's the real point. Where we have failed to get answers to
our oversight questions, we have actually had to revert to the Freedom of Information Act, the general law of government transparency, to try to get
answers from the Department of Justice.
Here is how we did. Not well. We have this stack of questions that you haven't answered in the nature of oversight.
[10:45:07]
We have this stack of FOIA requests that you haven't answered.
And I think it's important for us to believe that you actually take seriously your constitutional oversight responsibilities in order to
confirm you, that you actually take seriously your obligations to this committee, irrespective of party, majority or minority, in order to confirm
you.
So I will ask before we get to a vote on this that you take a look at these and get us answers. Where we have had answers, Mr. Blanche, they have not
been informative. They have been blow-offs.
So let's move on to Trump versus IRS. Our research indicates that senior DOJ officials have never in the history of the Department before faced a
judicial inquiry into a fraud on the court participated in by the Department of Justice.
That was the inquiry opened in Florida. The question about fraud on the court committed by the Department of Justice remains open in the judge's
decision. Here's what she did find. She found that the Department of Justice colluded with the Trump
plaintiffs, that the Department of Justice violated DOJ policies in that collusion, that department attorneys were derelict in their
responsibilities as DOJ attorneys, that the department failed to zealously advocate on behalf of the United States of America, its true client.
And, as I said, the fraud on the court question remains open, an unprecedented allegation about the department. As a result of that, the
order was transmitted to the New York State Bar for potential disciplinary proceedings.
I would like to ask, in addition, since this is new news -- the decision was, what, two days ago -- I would like to ask that you say to us that you
will be willing to provide all of the documents and communications between the Department of Justice and the Trump plaintiffs in that matter.
BLANCHE: I'm not aware of any communications. I didn't have any. So if you put a request in, we will look at it. I mean, obviously, that's active,
continued litigation in the Southern District of Florida. So it depends on..
WHITEHOUSE: Explain how it is active, continued litigation in the district of Florida.
BLANCHE: Well, there's been several indications that the parties of -- I never answered notice of appearance but that the parties intend to appeal
the judge's Monday 56-page decision.
WHITEHOUSE: Well, it'll be interesting. Do you intend to appeal, the Department of Justice?
BLANCHE: We weren't really even part of that decision. So to the extent there's something that we can appeal, I very vigorously will encourage the
department to do so.
WHITEHOUSE: Well, here's the tell. In that case, the Department of Justice filed no answer, filed no agreement with respect to the extension of time,
filed no response to the case or controversy amici, filed nothing related to the withdrawal of the complaint, filed no settlement and filed no
response to the fraud on the court inquiry.
To me, as a one-time litigator, that looks like really weird behavior. And when for the first time in history there's an inquiry into fraud upon the
court committed by the Department of Justice, the silence from the department in response to that is deafening, Mr. Blanche, deafening.
And it strikes me that the stratagem here was to file no pleadings to try to keep the department out of the authority of the court when what the
department knew to be a collusive and false enterprise was blown up in that court. Now it didn't work because the court found collusion and it takes
two to collude.
And they also went on and made the other adverse findings about the department's conduct. And the problem here, Mr. Blanche, is that it's not
just that one occasion.
Between judges appointed by every president harshly criticizing the department's work in your tenure, grand juries rejecting indictments.
[10:50:03]
Judicial findings of outright misconduct, capable lawyers fleeing the sinking ship, this seems to be the most troubled Department of Justice in
history.
Here are some of the misconduct findings against your U.S. attorneys. And if I haven't put it up yet, here's a word cloud of the commentary by
federal judges about the conduct of your DOJ.
These are red flag words that when I was a U.S. attorney would have provoked at minimum an internal conversation about what the hell went wrong
and very likely a conversation with OPR and maybe OPR pursuit.
Words like pretext mean a lot coming from a judge about a government argument, usually enjoying the presumption of regularity. We need answers.
I need you to be able to tell me that this kind of misconduct is going to stop if you're confirmed as attorney general. Can you say that?
BLANCHE: The Department of Justice works hard and the prosecutors work hard every day. And I appreciate the handpicked words that you have behind
you right now but that's not reflective of the 100,000 indictments and informations that have been filed to do the work that I talked about
earlier today.
And so while cherry-picking a few isolated words from district court or magistrate judges in certain districts is something that you are entitled
to do, it's absolutely false to suggest that this Department of Justice is not executing as we should in doing the right thing every single day.
WHITEHOUSE: I will tell you that you are wrong, that, in the history of the Department, this kind of criticism by federal judges is unprecedented
and it comes from judges of every different political persuasion.
Let me ask about the FBI. How long do you intend to put up with that Kash Patel character?
Are you good with his airplane jaunts?
Are you confident he's not drinking on the job?
Are you sure none of his travel is a pretext for vacation activities like snorkeling, Olympics and visiting girlfriends?
Are you sure he knows what he is doing?
Do you vouch for him?
Are you willing to look at whether he lied to this committee?
BLANCHE: That's an extraordinarily obnoxious question, Senator. And I have full faith in Director Patel and the work that he is doing every day.
WHITEHOUSE: Great. You get to own that.
(CROSSTALK)
WHITEHOUSE: One last thing, if I may. You have refused to exclude January 6 rioters from your anti-weaponization fund. You have refused to put in
writing that the slush fund is dead. Indeed, you signaled to allies that payouts are still on track.
You have vacated seditious conspiracy convictions against members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers.
You hired January 6 rioter Jared Wise, who had urged the mob to kill police officers. You scrubbed press releases about January 6 prosecutions and
called the releases partisan propaganda. You denied that Trump encouraged any violence on January 6.
You have cleaned house of every attorney who worked on a case related to Trump and you have bragged that bringing justice for violent rioters meant
that every one of them was either pardoned or had their sentence commuted.
I hope that our colleagues who are concerned about what happened on January 6 take that into account.
Thank you.
GRASSLEY: Would you like to respond?
BLANCHE: I would.
Almost everything the senator just said -- and he's protected. He's allowed to lie but almost everything he just said was absolutely false, OK,
starting with the fact that I have never, I have never said that any violence against law enforcement is appropriate.
I have never said that publicly. I have never said that in a speech and I certainly do not believe it. I did not hire the person referenced. And
that's -- that is, again, something that just happens not to be true.
When I talk about what happened with the January -- the convicted January 6 defendants, I talk about what President Trump did. He has the absolute
right to pardon anybody for any reason he sees fit and every one of them got pardoned or commuted. I am not celebrating that. It is a fact.
And the fact that my department had to take action in response to those pardons by dismissing some cases is exactly what I have to do under the law
and it's what I did. So that -- the narrative that the senator just suggested and put on me as something I believe is absolutely not true.
WHITEHOUSE: Since he accused me of lying personally, Mr. Chairman, let me ask that I put this series of concerns into a question for the record and
that you, under oath, one by one, tell me where there's a lie.
[10:55:04]
BLANCHE: I'm happy to do that.
WHITEHOUSE: OK?
We will get that to you.
BLANCHE: I'm happy to do that, absolutely.
GRASSLEY: Before I go to Senator Blackburn, since oversight was brought up and responsiveness to -- of your department, I'd like to speak about how it
was with the Biden Justice Department's non-responsiveness to my oversight letters.
If the Biden Justice Department would have been remotely responsive, there wouldn't be such a backlog right now. So let's not pretend for a minute the
last administration was a benchmark of responsiveness. And this administration, to its credit, has been more responsive.
I talked about in my opening statement 43,000 pages of documents that you have released compared to a lot less in the previous administration.
Senator Blackburn.
SEN. MARSHA BLACKBURN (R-TN): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being with us today.
Before I get to my questions, I would like to make you aware that when Ranking Member Durbin was chairman in the last Congress, I tried repeatedly
to subpoena the Epstein files so that we could get those banking records and those flight logs and repeatedly that was blocked.
So the Democrats at that point didn't want to know what was in the Epstein files until they lost the majority and then they were hell-bent to get
that.
I also want to make certain that we get on the record that you and that DOJ has met with the following list of attorneys who represent victims,
including many who have claimed that they've never had a meeting with DOJ.
Now here is this list: Sigrid McCauley, Jordan Merson, Gloria Allred, Arick Fudali, Alan Goldfarb (ph), Daniel Kaiser, Mariann Meier Wang, Glenn
Neck (ph), Adam Horowitz, Jack Scarola, Dennis Arte (ph), Kevin Menser (ph), Jill Greenfield, Julie Kays (ph).
David H. Brody (ph), Robert Glassman, Kate L. Doniger, Andrew Villacastin, Brittany Henderson, Brad Edwards, Avrin Robin (ph), Neil Binder (ph), David
Flesig (ph), Roberta Kaplan (ph), Tasha Thompson (ph), for the record.
I do want to talk with you a little bit about Memphis and the Memphis Safe Task Force. We are so grateful. When you talk about a success, the work
that has been done in Memphis in fighting crime, this is going to be a big part of President Trump's legacy and his commitment to Memphis.
The commitment that has been made by his administration is something that Memphians and all West Tennesseans are incredibly grateful for.
And this is something with President Trump, with Kash Patel, we started saying, please help us. And that call was answered. I brought the crime
stats -- we get the daily report from Memphis -- 11,040 arrests have been made.
And yesterday, there were 40 arrests. These included someone charged with second-degree murder, another with first-degree murder, aggravated child
abuse, attempted rape and aggravated assault.
There have been nearly 2,000 firearms that have been seized and there have been 155 children that have been recovered. The stats here tell the story.
You, president, Director Patel and the agencies that are there working with our governor, state agencies, the Memphis mayor, the Memphis police chiefs,
this is the way to fight crime. And we are ever so grateful.
And we want to be able to sustain and build on that. And I'd like for you to talk just a moment about Memphis and what lies ahead for Memphis and
more broadly for other cities and counties that are focused on public safety.
BLANCHE: Thank you, Senator. What we have done -- and by we, I don't mean the Department of Justice alone, I mean state and local partners, the
National Guard, all of our federal agencies -- DHS in Memphis should be a poster child for a lot of cities in this country.
You have a city that had skyrocketing crime and restaurants that were out of business, storefronts that didn't --
[10:00:00]
END
